Kristjan Byfield... Estate Agent Today

It's £3 for a title register and another £3 if you want the title plan. If £6 is a problem then they have much bigger problems!

From: Kristjan Byfield 19 October 2017 13:33 PM

From: Kristjan Byfield 19 October 2017 13:30 PM

Great work by Charlie Wright, his team and CIELA.

From: Kristjan Byfield 18 October 2017 12:02 PM

Surely it is down to us agents, as 'experts' in our field to know what is valid and what's not. Ive been pitched many ideas and I am always happy to (hopefully politely) advise them when I think they are fixing an issue that isnt 'broken' or are applying a solution that simply won't work within the industry (often due to a lack of understanding of the inner workings and legalities). To me this sounds like we are compaining about too much innovation. I'm not sure I agree with the comment on the savings app either- we have apps to remind us to exercise, to remind us to drink water and lots of other things that we can easily apply if we so wished without the need of any 3rd parties- but in a society where savings are virtually unheard of (especially amongst the young) I actually think this is a good idea to help those that often dont think this far ahead. Bob is a hugely respected figure, and for good reason, but the piece (tooting the trumpet of his own company) did come across quite a lot as click bait and self promotion. Experienced figures can teach us a lot but I am not sure I am looking for one to tell me what tech & innovatiosn I shuld/shouldnt adopt.

From: Kristjan Byfield 27 September 2017 13:41 PM

John- please dont just blankly refute. Explain which points Simon has detailed are wrong- and why. What exactly do RM or ZPG have to fear from you guys- dropping the OOP rule you are no longer any form of threat to them your smply joining the club and going against the main reason OTM was formed- by increasing agents marketing costs NOT reducing and by joining the 'monopoly' (OTMs marketing words during recuritment not mine).

From: Kristjan Byfield 24 August 2017 15:18 PM

Spot on in my eyes Simon- think I agree on every single point.

From: Kristjan Byfield 24 August 2017 15:16 PM

James- nice piece....but if you can find a good news story in The Guardian about estate & letting agents (other than online models) I would love to read it! We are seen as the enemy- with TG often heaping the woes of a failing housing market on us and/or landlords- rather than at the government who is solely responsible. Everyone loves a good agent bashing eh!? Anyway, certainly not all doom and gloom- even us small agents are seeing good results so far this year, we are up around 25% this year to date. I'd be intrigued to know, in all industry fields, what % of companies are always 'at risk'- I wouldnt be surprised if this figure is fairly normal. Business rise and businesses fall.

From: Kristjan Byfield 02 August 2017 12:12 PM

At base we're actually seeing a different pivot in tenant behaviour. With more and more London tenants accepting that, short of a big inheritance or lottery win, they will never own a home in London- many are committing to their rented home. Our average tenant now rents a property with us for over 3 years with 5+ year tenancies also on the increase. Short lets are an essential part of the property market but, in a market already reaching maximum rent viability in many areas, you have to ask what large scale scope the short-stay market has whilst the prices remain at a premium. A great raise for lavanda withsome powerful names in there but with the hosted short stay market getting increasingly crowded it's a tough place to be. I laud their service innovation to offer a complete marketplace offering but do not see this as revolutionary as this piece suggests. I'd also have serious questions about taking up a service for a client when they also compete in my marketplace- how could I be sure I retain my client when their offering is everything and not a standalone service such as airsorted or the like.

From: Kristjan Byfield 19 July 2017 11:20 AM

There are a few issues to overcome yet- the

From: Kristjan Byfield 19 July 2017 11:04 AM

Brilliant article Graham. Politicians launch policy after policy as a sound bite to the masses to make it look like they are taking action when, in actual fact, they simply muddy the waters further. There is no difference between 5 regs or 100- if none get enforced. With around 160 regs creating over 400 laws for renting and this ever-growing what entity (landlord, agent or enforcement agency) can possibly stay full abreast & informed without major assistance. Sensible legislation, the de-politicisizing of housing and effective enforcement are all key ways forwards. However, you only have to look at the governments refusal to regulate our industry officially for decades to see how genuinely dis-interested or utterly lost they are. Tech could well be the saviour of all of these groups. Bring effective enforcement & transparency is key and that can only be delivered in today's world through tech. Tackling this epic issues is one of our 'big world' ambitions at our (soon to launch) PropTech platform. The property world is changing fast that's for sure.

From: Kristjan Byfield 15 July 2017 11:55 AM

The quality offerings (that aren't on a mission of 'disruption') that facilitate the automation & streamlining of demanding & repetitive tasks are the solutions delivering quantified results in our industry. The agents that excel, understand that this should not (necessarily) result in the reduction of staff but the re-allocation of their time to deliver a better service experience or a more focused sales stratgey- or both. Whilst there are a lot of vicious rumours as to the intentions of ZPG I am yet to see anyone substantiate them with any fact. Our dealings to date with ZPG and senior staff there (including their CEO) have, to date, shown an agent-centric operation with a lot of exciting functionality in the pipeline. Why would they keep investing in this manner if their aim was to cut us out? Their acquisition of companies along the chain have been questioned yet, as a business man, this appears to make total sense to me- what not tap in to every section of the property processes? What is more, the 'scare-mongering' about the likes of RM & ZPG and their long term intentions to become some sort of online agency model keeps ignoring a huge point- they are both substantially (especially RM) proftable businesses whilst online agents are yet to prove a viable business return outside of share value performance. Why would any business wish to switch from profit to loss? There are major questions being raised over the data and its usage but, as a small agent, I currently have no way to leverage this (this is one of the many things I hope CIELA can explore- it it launches), have seen no sign of any misuse by ZPG, and know they are regulated by the same Data regs that the rest of us are. The leverage of mass data is no secret and is montised in many industries (and has been for years) outside of property- so no surprise to see an exploration if that here. Can anyone substantiate these rumours with anything fact/evidence based?

From: Kristjan Byfield 05 July 2017 14:03 PM

Wow a much wider uptake than I had expected and maybe, just maybe, I will end up eating my words on this one but for me the early adoption of a well structured pitch or FOMO is neither here nor there- look at what EP already raised in funds. Ill be interested to see how many renew their license in 12 months time or, as Rob says above, if the EP brand will survive.

From: Kristjan Byfield 26 June 2017 16:45 PM

Exciting times ahead- hope to see lots of people at the London 'Decision Makers Debate' on 12th July. You can regster to attend at the CIELA website.

From: Kristjan Byfield 09 June 2017 16:13 PM

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....honestly dont know what else to say apart from that.

From: Kristjan Byfield 08 June 2017 11:31 AM

With portals reorting multi-million pound profits and (large) onine agents reporting multi-million pound losses to date......is this really something to worry about? I know if I owned ZPG/RM which business model I would pursue!

From: Kristjan Byfield 07 June 2017 20:02 PM

Not sure I would class this as Uber playing a major role in property development- but definitely an interesting pledge. However, how long can Uber keep making multi-billion dollar losses? The patent battle with google on self-driving is pretty much their make or break. Lose and they will probably be one of the biggest non-starters ever to exist. Can they really tussle with the true might of Google?

From: Kristjan Byfield 31 May 2017 11:18 AM

If they are good enough to make those earnings in a cut fee model- just think what they would be earning in a quality, full-service set up. Now, I wonder which one I want to work for...... I have to say the 'we're perfect' rhetoric is getting somewhat nauseating- clients pay less, get more, agents work (seemingly) whenever they want and also earn more- next thing you know they will be chucking in a free winning lottery ticket with every new region because, well, why wouldn't they?

From: Kristjan Byfield 31 May 2017 11:15 AM

This piece isn't directly about PB it's about an organisation, funded by members, that uses its consumer representation (despite have alwys no consumer brand recognition) as a reason not to kick out a company that is publicly attacking our entire industry. If national marketing campaigns flaring poor public perception of our industry, and organisations we fund allowing this to continue unabaited whilst retaining membership, then that is concerning. It's not what they do but how they go about it and the reaction of those partes that should defend their industry/members. We are not in any way asking online agents to be kicked out, they serve a genuine purpose and service in our industry, but those that attack our industry surely don't respect it so shouldn't be entitled to membership of the trade they continue to tear down. That's all.

From: Kristjan Byfield 25 May 2017 18:20 PM

Matt is simply iterating what we all know and have struggled with for decades. Maybe if he'd been in the game a bit longer he'd realise that. Yawn.

From: Kristjan Byfield 19 May 2017 11:19 AM

Is it me or are the various parties throwing out bigger and bolder pledges with absolutely no substance or explanation to them? Pathetic moves to win votes with lies and no substance- hppe whoever wins is held to account for lying through their teeth to the (mainly ill-infirmed) British public. We'd all love to see the buying/selling process modernised and sped up but, after numerous failed attempts by people much more intelligent and informed than our political 'leaders', I would love to hear how they intend to achieve this.

From: Kristjan Byfield 18 May 2017 13:02 PM

Great to see PropTech more widely acknowledged and its true value, and potential, become a woder phenomenon. As the industry deveops and matures and the understanding, and vast possibilities, are realised we should see increasingly informed & micro-structured insights. Thanks for reading the 95 pages though James- many of us couldnt!

From: Kristjan Byfield 17 May 2017 11:32 AM

Yowser! Keen to see their latest accounts filed which should be any day...... Staggering investment though- well done to them but they must be under immense pressure to deliver on that size investment.

From: Kristjan Byfield 17 May 2017 11:21 AM

Is that because EP are doing such an amazing job?

From: Kristjan Byfield 16 May 2017 16:54 PM

Surey, unless one/both of them are not both buying & selling simultaneaously otherwise they end up paying similar costs as they pay 50% of both instead of 100% of one. Isnt this pointless? Wouldmt it be better to legislate that this can be thrown in with the mortgage?

From: Kristjan Byfield 05 May 2017 18:17 PM

With £19m (nearly) of losses filed Oct 2016 on top of £4.5m the previous year this was on the cards. Ouch.

From: Kristjan Byfield 03 May 2017 16:08 PM

Can't wait always a good blast- just got to find a louder shirt than last year! Any suggestions?

From: Kristjan Byfield 28 April 2017 12:59 PM

Jmes, as usual, very much on point with your assumptions I think although I think the timeline is somewhat optimistic. I think we will see this come to effect over the next 5-10 years in major UK cities and filtering out from there over the following 5-10 years. 10-20 years sounds long but for a complete transformation of transactional attitudes I think this is more realistc. I think there will also be resistance to this as I also think you will see a rise of GenZ fighting this to create a new kind of local community that is closer, more informed and more 'in tune' woth one another's tastes and political/social beliefs than ever before.

From: Kristjan Byfield 28 April 2017 12:57 PM

It depends if you have a genuine interest in where the indutsry is heading and how full service agents can tap in to an array of technology to deliver the future of full service. This will enable agents to delight clients whilst retaining fee structure and proftability- seemingly an issue for agents big and small up and down the UK. If you are not interested in the fututre propspects of the company you own/manage/are employed by then, yeah, I guess it will be pretty dull. We are delighted to be included on this panel as we feel strongly that, as a single office agent, our voice here is important as too many agents think this level of tech and innovation is only possible in larger entities. In fact, I firmly believe the opposite to be true. Whilst larger organisations will see a greater scale of benefit over time, the ability for a company to quickly, and regularly, change tack, adapting and evolving along the way, is easiest to acheive in a small company.

From: Kristjan Byfield 06 April 2017 13:47 PM

Don't worry though as the investors have complete faith in both the business and the CEO. It'll be fine. Honest. Now- do I take my Ferrari to work today or my McLaren?

From: Kristjan Byfield 05 April 2017 14:13 PM

Ouch.

From: Kristjan Byfield 05 April 2017 14:12 PM

No plans for a portal as yet- primary objective is giving independents a strong national voice & challenging the messages of large organisations with deep pockets. Importantly, we are not setting out too strongly exactly what CIELA is as we feel strongly this should be decided by the members. One of the elements that will decide CIELA's success/failyre going forwards is the engagement of agents up and down the UK. if agents sit back, don't engage and pick away at what the company could/should be then it will likely struggle to get off the ground. However, if agents (for the princely sum of £35 a month) engage and help shape the organisation then we could have something by & for agents that could be quite special. Even then, we have to acknowledge that it won't get everything right from the start- no organsiation or business does.

From: Kristjan Byfield 04 April 2017 10:30 AM

Almost half would recommend their agent- not that bad, and hopefully the other half will find a better agent next time and recommend them.

From: Kristjan Byfield 03 April 2017 13:50 PM

Shock horror- CEO says everything is fine. Shock horror people with millions invested say everything is ok- because a slump in sare value would in no way hurt them. Initial losses, even big ones, for market share are one thing. If you look at PB with similar losses but the market share they have acheived for this and you then see just how shocking these figures are. £17m and counting for a company not even acheiving a £1m turnover- the investors may have confidence in the business but I know I would be seriously questioning my confidence in the CEO.

From: Kristjan Byfield 03 April 2017 13:46 PM

Well said

From: Kristjan Byfield 01 April 2017 12:49 PM

£16m raised, nearly £18m losses in 2 years to create a £875k turnover. You have to wonder if that money would have been better spent acquiring portfolios/companies and going from there. Their fund raising was bizarre- especially the tiny equity they offered through crowdfunding for a lot of money- those investors got burned bad. The mask is slipping on so many of these services with only the best surviving. You have to also wonder, if/when a 'digiital only' service can be proven to be profitable, what is to stop every agent simply rolling out this offering at the flick of a switch- with the infratructure in place to transition to hybrid and full service. Looks like he might not be driving his Ferrari around for too much longer!

From: Kristjan Byfield 31 March 2017 12:40 PM

James, as usual, bang on the money. OEAs are not (generally) a threat to agents- if you can justify/demonstrate how the human element of your business delivers a different service to digital-only. That said, the genera marketing message of certain agents needs to be adjusted to be so 'anti industry' and I am still staggered at the lack of action in THIS regard by the likes of NAEA. However, I firmly beleive it is traditionalists that are killing their own business. Our agency is full service, yet we have adopted loads of PropTech to streamline & automate the inner workings. To date, we have/are using: jupix, propertyfile, move it, eyespy360, movebubble, docusign, ValPal and many more. The result? We are freed up to focus on the consumer experience. And yes, I do bloody well mean the consumer. Whilst we have clients, our focus on service for all should be paramount to every full-service agent out there. By embracing tech, yet remaining a small independent team with (currently just 5 staff) we keep winning awards, get amazing (and genuine) reviews, should get close to 700k turnover this year (on target to hit our 1m target by 2020) and we operate at nearly 50% profit. Literally a win all round. It was interesting talking to so many agents at the ARLA event yesterday, still an overwhleming divide between tech savvy & tech cautious agents. I find it mind-boggling when I meet senior agency staff who respond with 'it worked for the last 10 years so why change it'. Whilst independents are far more dynamic and can adapt and test solutions quickly, too many are far too slow to do so. Meanwhile, although the adoption process is much slower, the larger agents appear far more aware of the benefits of tech and are not only doing so but are actively seeking out the next thing round the corner. I would love to know the correlation between the tech-cautious agents and those that are constantly bemoaning sliding fees, OEA threat, etc. Im guessing this will be rather strong. Tech, like electronics, has become so reasonable and affordable that there is little excuse for agents NOT to try things. However, when doing so, agents need to fully commit to the transition- which will involve embedding new procedures, retraining staff and regualr checks to review adopton, feedback & performance.

From: Kristjan Byfield 29 March 2017 15:03 PM

Holy shit- people's reaction to this is far more concerning than the advert itself. Especially the muppet saying it would be fine with the roles reversed- you seriously posted that as a public message? They have been running this campaign for ages and I think it is a stroke of genius. Personally I would have left it where it was- sometimes people talking about an ad is as important as the ad itself. Steve Hughes addresses this best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceS_jkKjIgo

From: Kristjan Byfield 29 March 2017 14:17 PM

Profitable- apart from the fact they filed a loss of £29k this year and a loss of £31k last year and thery currently report a whopping £3,500 in the bank. Yup, really proving the profitability of this model. Established in 2010 but this press release is the forst Ive heard of them. Definitley the next PB. Also I understood online market share to be done this year at 5% from 6% last year, at least thats what ive read on several places, yet these guys say online was just 2.5% last year. Good to see they are clear on their stats and figures.

From: Kristjan Byfield 17 March 2017 12:41 PM

Ooooouuuuuuch.

From: Kristjan Byfield 13 March 2017 11:44 AM

With buyers having the choice of other agents outside of this 'cartel' as well as options for online agents I dont really see how this is unfair/unjust. 1.5 is not hefty- had they set the minimum well above the national avg then that may be something. What's more, if I was one of the ones fined I'd be rather miffed about the agent from the biggest company involved getting away scott free! Persoanlly this seems really harsh.

From: Kristjan Byfield 02 March 2017 15:26 PM

Wow we live in a mad world!

From: Kristjan Byfield 24 February 2017 13:25 PM

Flatty McFlatFace?

From: Kristjan Byfield 21 February 2017 11:14 AM

This is a great addition to the AM team and James is, for sure, one (if not the) leading PropTech expert in the UK. Look forward to reading his informed articles and hopefully he can help enlighten agents up and down the country, big and small, to understand the role tech can play in their business and needs to to survive and prosper in the coming years.

From: Kristjan Byfield 07 February 2017 11:12 AM

So great to see them quantify this with detailed statistics! Success is in the sale on the instruction- at least it is for traditional agents. A findamentally self-centred goal and an empty boast for its consumers. Any journalist fancy doing some detective work and reporting on average instruction times, % of properties successfully sold, % of sales that fall through and how this all compares to the industry they are desperately trying to 'disrupt'?

From: Kristjan Byfield 31 January 2017 15:23 PM

They'll do all that? Wow. Stand back everyone. Tick, tock, tick, tock.......

From: Kristjan Byfield 30 January 2017 13:50 PM

Great article Graham with some very interesting points, however I think far too many people are rushing to put CIELA and its objectives in a box. Not only that, but many are also quick to state what a categorical failure it is bound to be for X, Y and Z reasons. For now, all we want agents to know is that we understand the struggle. We get this issues and challenges and hurdles that we need to overcome. We don’t profess to know the all the answers, but we have some great ideas and, if we combine that with the voices of most of the independents in the UK, over time we can find solutions to these issues and truly champion our vital sector of this much embattled industry. Here are some of my thoughts on the various points raised in this article and I believe I am right in saying that they are shared by many- but my no means represent any set position of CIELA- it’s simply far too early for that yet. On The Market- this was not a representative body but a portal set out with 2 exclusive goals: to destabilise the monopoly of RM & ZPG and to massively reduce the portal listing costs of agents. That's it. Nothing more. It didn't set out to deliver new tech tools to help agents be more efficient, offer wider services, lead with innovation or seek to raise the profile of its member agents for any reason (other than listing with OTM). It had no consumer goal- it wasn't aiming to be the most responsive portal on the market, or the fastest loading, it didn’t seek to deliver a revolutionary product or layout for users, deliver a unique bridge between portals and social media........I could go on. It was a selfish goal that really focused on one thing and one thing only- cutting agents overheads. It placed its objectives above those of its member agents- applying the OOP rule and also asking agents to list properties with them several days before any other listings- including their own websites, thereby actually downgrading the SEO value delivered to the agents own site for their own stock. For an industry with such a bad perception (right or wrong) such a selfish motivation was always heading for almost certain failure. NAEA/ARLA/etc- There is no denying that these organisations help ensure a certain level of professional standards in an unlicensed industry. They are ‘voluntary regulators’. They train and educate agents, look to raise standards through compliance, and this is great, but as agents, especially today, we need more. They are not a consumer recognised brand and, as such, ultimately deliver little if any 'face value' in this respect. They are unwilling/unable to be the voice for agents in the media challenging the stereotypes and counteracting the negative stories with tales of success, innovation, excellence and (god forbid) the personal tales of Tenants/Landlords/Buyers/Sellers loving their agents and what they do for them. What is more they are, and must be, market-wide regulators embracing the evolution, innovation and spectrum of our industry. RM & ZPG- personally I have found that agents’ apparent ‘hatred’ towards these organisations is largely unfounded. When I talk to agents from any part of the country that are doing well (whether that be a start-up, seasoned or large established entity) they almost unanimously see huge value in what these products deliver in terms of results (applicant enquiries) and the ROI these deliver. Usually this comes down to understanding the metrics and monitoring your marketing activity. I doubt many agents out there can dispute the value in deals done with leads through these portals’ core subscriptions. However, if you are spending hundreds or even thousands a month on featured agents and post code banners and getting no leads- then this isn’t the portals failing (per se) this is the agent wasting the money on a product that doesn’t deliver. That money should be reassigned elsewhere- perhaps to social media marketing, flyers, local events & sponsorship. This expenditure should keep ‘moving’ until the right solution is found that delivers that agents the results they are seeking. After all, you wouldn’t keep a negotiator employed if they never did any deals so why would you keep spending money on a specific product with no proven results? If you’re spending £3k (or more) a month on additional ‘brand value’ products and getting little or no ROI- why don’t you hire someone whose sole objective is generating valuations? Or maybe offer a luxury holiday giveaway each month drawn from any valuations (sales and lettings) undertaken each month? Corporates & Online Agents- most agents actually totally understand the fact that the market will evolve- in a world of Facebook, uber and Deliveroo how can it not? However, the issue, at least in the wider media, is how do Independents challenge the two dominating messages out there- namely: ‘Why on earth choose a single-office/small agent to represent you when an organisation with hundreds of offices is much better?’ AND (of course) ‘Why keep wasting money on ‘rip-off agents’ when you can pay 10% and get exactly the same thing from online?’ How do we challenge this? To engage on an individual level ultimately comes across petty and is perceived as a weakness. That you must be losing the fight or must be lying to try and fight off the inevitable switch to online-only. Is there a point having a small independent advert extolling that agent’s values and benefits muddled in amongst 15 pages of glossy corporate adverts listings hundreds/thousands of properties, new offices, huge networks or new build schemes. There is a negative voice bubbling under our industry- in fact bubbling under almost every aspect of our lives. It seeks to proclaim why a company, service or organisation is rubbish/criminal/incompetent or some elaborate coup. It all too quickly slings unfounded, and often highly inaccurate, accusations around- for why, who really knows. We must not engage in this. Most of the agents who read this will (I sincerely hope) identify with a lot of what I have written here. They may not agree on my perspective and they may have a totally different idea on how to tackle it- but that is exactly HOW we will tackle and oversee these challenges. That is how we can rise up and represent our industry in the truest of lights. Through debate and discussion, through attempt and (god forbid) failure, through achievements big and small we can champion our fantastic industry and, in time, change the perception held by so many. But this will only be possible if the lion’s share of our sector do one simple initial thing- agree to unite in finding a solution. CIELA, I believe, truly represents a remarkable opportunity- one that agents up and down the country have been begging for for years…..even if they didn’t realise it until now. So, let’s not categorise it just yet; let’s not stick it in a box; let’s not doom it to instant and definitive failure; let’s not imagine treachery of some Machiavellian mastery. Let’s just accept that we agree on some of the key challenges ahead and let’s work together, let’s challenge each other, to overcome these and to become an industry that adds value to people’s property lives.

From: Kristjan Byfield 21 January 2017 13:23 PM

It is early days, but the premise and objectives should be enticing to every independent agent in the UK. Genuine, unilateral support has been missing from our industry and this is one of the key objectives as we move forward. With the support and insight of idependent agents up and down the UK we can create an organisation by and for agents that should suceed where others have failed.

From: Kristjan Byfield 19 January 2017 11:54 AM

Hi Glenn- thanks for the candid response. I'd still be intrigued to know what percentage of current franchisees are acheiving a £100k income which is the very tag line of the marketing you are bombarding us with through the industry media channels. Whilst you gave comprehensive answers, you swiftly avoided this question. I did make a point of looking at the accounts of your earlier franchisees (2014)- as a founder/director myself I totally understand that cashflow and profitability takes time. However, I do want to know if you can substantiate these claims in any factual way as this is the carrot you are using to atrract uptake. As for Tenancies undertaken under a different agency- how on earth can these be atributed to the Ewe Move brand? Factually they cant so surely this is a false and misleading statistic. What is more, your method is logical but not literal- any software you are using should easily be able to identify genuine tenancy lengths. Maybe I'm wrong but then again maybe I'm just (as your email tag line made clear) just one of those 'stupid estate agents'. When you take this approach I dont think you can be surprised that some take a more personal affront to your approach.

From: Kristjan Byfield 11 January 2017 15:01 PM

The mail shot out today is asking about people looking to make 6-figure incomes. A brief check (and I do stress brief as I only looked at 6-7) of several of the older franchises started in 2014 doesnt appear to support this claim. In fact (and maybe my pickings were unlucky) showed every one I looked at filing a loss in their latest accounts. Out of interest Glenn (if you're reading this) how many of your franchisees are actually taking home a 6 figure income? On another point, having looked at the Ewe Move website ther is a claim that the average let is 4 years- how can this be possible for a company that isnt even 3 years old? Maybe I am being naive or sill and I am sure someone from EM can explain this to me but found this a bizarre claim to make.

From: Kristjan Byfield 09 January 2017 12:18 PM

Sounds like a lot of money being spent! Ouch!

From: Kristjan Byfield 06 January 2017 17:41 PM

Looking at their website I am not sure who exactly these guys are or why they are lookin to comment on UK RE.

From: Kristjan Byfield 06 January 2017 17:35 PM

I think the tricky thing most viewers forget is that there is no financial commitment from them to view a property. What's more, as an agent, one of the easiest ways to vet how serious an applicant is, is to restrict viewing availability (without being unreasonable). If they are serious they will accommodate- or at least try (at which case you can always accommodate them). But if an applicant tells me they want to see a property but only on X date at X time then I know they're not serious. I wonder how applicants would react to free viewings according to the agnets schedule (as norm) with a premium 'paid for' viewing service at specified times? Wouldnt have to be a lot- say £20-30. Again, this would filter how serious they are. You could always offer to credit this should they proceed with a tenancy/purchase.

From: Kristjan Byfield 06 January 2017 17:31 PM

Love to know what this sta is for London.

From: Kristjan Byfield 22 December 2016 13:55 PM

Bang on- huge growth and efficiencies and innovation will be driven by tech in the next 10 years and the agencies that successfully embrace and engage with it will see the best peformance going forwards. The key is balancing the tech with a full-service human offering and the understanding that people will need to be re-trained and reallocated within companies, delivering a better experience whilst the machines do the boring (and exciting) stuff.

From: Kristjan Byfield 10 December 2016 12:51 PM

The eternal issue with all things property is that they always get discussed on a national scale- which is madness. How can you possibly put an agent working in far flung regions where rents average £400 a month with London agents with average rents around £3000 per month. The implications are vastly different- do many (if any) have any sympathy for the likes of Foxtons? With fees of 11% Let Only and 17% Fully Managed you have to ask how they could ever justify charging both Landlords AND Tenants £350 + VAT for a contract. Moreover- you have to ask why Landlords, paying the highest fees in the Land, acquiesced to any additional charges. Whilst the financial impact on this legislation will mean a huge revenue lost for Foxtons is anyone sorry? No- in fact those of us who have always taken a fair approach to fees are actually livid because it is the greed of agents like this that has caused this whole situation. Yet, turn your attention to a regional lettings agency getting £400-500 for a let and you have to wonder how on Earth they will survive without additional revenues. At that rate, there are no margins, the profits are miniscule and the additional fees and charges essential in simple financial terms. What I also find odd, however, is how much the various Tenants Rights action groups are hailing this a success. Really? Whilst, yes, in theory (and on the basis that hidden costs do not escalate to offset these charges) you have saved the average Tenant @ £250. Thats it. Is that going to prevent Tenants struggling to make ends meet find security- no. Does it give Tenants the long sought after security of tenancy- no. Does it prevent rent increases (many of which are often more over the year than the fee)-no. Whilst some agents will struggle and some will barely blink (these fees account for around 1.5% of our lettings revenues) the reality is Tenants will think they have won something and they havent. Should I be at all surprised that, once again, the government has looked to legislate an area of our industry with little or no consultation? Yet another, poorly thought out, knee-jerk reaction that creates good press but nothing else of any good really comes from it and the spotlight is once again turned on our industry vilifying us all for being theifs and charlatans ensuing that we will never escape the dreaded '3 most hated professions' (you would have thought, with politicians in the same group, they might want to work together a bit more).

From: Kristjan Byfield 10 December 2016 12:46 PM

“We are confident that our Local Property Experts meet all necessary regulations." - surely you either are compliant or you aren't it has nothing to do with confidence just knowledge.

From: Kristjan Byfield 08 December 2016 12:16 PM

Last accounts show a loss of nearly £500k but that was filed in June 2015- with a salary bill that likely sits around £2m (based on the claimed 60 staff) Im intrigued to see their accounts when theyre filed. However, accounts not being filed for nearly 18 months is often an ominous sign. With increasing reports of true figures, Ill be intrigued to read these as and when they become available- no point doubling turnover if it means your doubling your losses!

From: Kristjan Byfield 18 November 2016 10:38 AM

Always interesting to investigate the figures behind (previous) hype. Jamie and haus did very well to win awards, had an amazing PR machine and genuinely appeared to create a successful, cutting edge brand. However latest accounts filed in May show a loss of over £440k with a loss of £215k the year prior- not many businesses can survive with thos enegative figures. Yet, you have to ask, in an incredibly strong London market the last 2 years and their claimed volume of sales and rental business this should have been highlhy profitable. All too often, the agents that grab the biggest headlines display some 'interesting' company accounts- not always, but too often.

From: Kristjan Byfield 17 November 2016 14:06 PM

Young heads make interesting leaders- I started base in 2004 aged 24 and things seem to be going pretty well to date.

From: Kristjan Byfield 14 November 2016 14:20 PM

Surely this has risen in line with property prices? As most of us operate on % fees that wuld make sense- however, with most agents racheting down their % fee and others trying to compete with online with cut fixed price fees it would interesting to see someone like EAT get an article published by major media showing how, despite fees going up, the applicable % has shrunk- showing that buyers sell for more and actually pay less. Wouldnt that be nice?

From: Kristjan Byfield 07 November 2016 18:25 PM

So 2015 so soemwhere in the region of 1.2-1.3m residential sales of which there were roughly 1500 upheld complaints regarding them- or the equivalent to roughly 0.12%.Is it really that shocking- sounds quite impressive to me. What's more, average payout was roughly £245 showing that a lot of these rulings were over smaller issues with discretionary awards. No attention is paid to mandatory membership of a Redress scheme massively increasinbg membership and therefore, as logic would dictate, an applicable increase in reported incidents. I'd be intrigued to see the increase in reports offset against the increase of membership for the last 2 years- I wouldnt be surprised to have seen membership climb much faster than reports showing, actually, what a legitimate industry we really are. What is more, one of the greatest battles of all industry 'regulators' (everything from ARLA/RICS to SAFEAgent to Deposit schemes and Redess) has been growing public awareness and uptake. Yet, now they get this, suddenly this means that we are a bunch if ill-behaved, miscreants keen to do ittle more than line our own pockets at the expense of (seemingly) everyone.

From: Kristjan Byfield 10 October 2016 11:54 AM

RIP OTM.

From: Kristjan Byfield 10 October 2016 11:44 AM

Shock horror- the busiest month of the year for Lettings sees the highest number of listings. Look out for other insights such as 'correctly priced properties sell faster than over-valued ones' and 'people would love to get more and pay less'. I think I may start a clairvoyant agency on the side.

From: Kristjan Byfield 07 October 2016 16:47 PM

£18 million losses in 2 years. How is that not front and centre in any of these articles? Online agents have a definite role in our industry but are not 'the future'. A blend of full service combined with great software and other additional proptech platforms like FixFlo, Goodlord, PayProp, EyeSpy360 and more are where the future really lies in terms of user experience and company profitability.

From: Kristjan Byfield 07 October 2016 16:44 PM

I just dont understand the business model of low fes but a TV campaign. It hasnt worked that well for PB with £20m in 2 years, why would YOPA want to follow that? Lets see what their accounts look like next year.

From: Kristjan Byfield 16 September 2016 10:12 AM

I dont understand how OTM is a 'refreshing change for consumers'. It isnt as well designed, as nice to navigate nor does it have half of the leading functionality features and data as ZPG/RM. If there's something I'm missing then please explain but the only 'good' thing about OTM is reduced marketing costs for agents- I dont see how that benefits the consumer at all. If anyone can explain to me what features, etc are better on OTM I am all ears....

From: Kristjan Byfield 02 September 2016 12:25 PM

You would sincerely hope so after the investment and press they have received. They currently have 623 available listings which means this time last year they have just 124 listings nationwide. Last year that would have meant revenues (generated by the 124 listings) of just £96,720 (yet their acount filings show revenue of just over £70k). Crank that up five-fold and you're looking at £500k (or £350k if you use accounts filed) but let's not forget Savills invested £16m. Accounts filed in April show losses of £1.1m. I totally get online agents and their place in the market but have any yet proven the model to be profitable? Anyone can get market share by under-cutting a market dramatically whilst also investing tons in advertising but is this sustainable? Intrigied to hear journos start adsking these sorts of questions?

From: Kristjan Byfield 30 August 2016 11:05 AM

Anyone find it interesting that Properties Listed and Reevenue per instruction are both up by the same amount? This would mean revenues up by 266% (163% x 163%) is this accurate? Seems bizarre to me these are just figure statements rather than supported statistics.

From: Kristjan Byfield 30 August 2016 10:51 AM

'Looking after the communities we operate in is an integral part of our company ethos.' April fools was nearly 5 months ago guys although thanks for the mid-week chuckles.

From: Kristjan Byfield 25 August 2016 12:39 PM

Who were these guys- never even heard of them. So bored of the haters though- online is here to stay, embrace it and understand how to differentiate. If you are threatened by online then the service you give clearly isnt up to scratch.

From: Kristjan Byfield 19 August 2016 14:55 PM

From: Kristjan Byfield 29 July 2016 12:34 PM

Can't say I agree James- however the main reason for this is that there is nothing revolutionary or unique about the features or UX of OTM. It was built will the sole aim of reducing agents marketing spend. Unless they can genuinely differentiate themselves with something users cant do without and agents cant ignore then they are doomed to failure. And, unless they do create this, I want them to fail- because, if they dont, they will drop the OOP rule at which point all of us will have to use them which will then add another expense on top of RM & ZPG yet portals dont create leads they simply funnel them. More costs for same revenue.

From: Kristjan Byfield 29 July 2016 12:30 PM

Usually any floating company blocks any sale of shares by key members for a considerable amount of time (often 1 year+) to ensure a stable ship and to maintain public perception. Yet somehow, afer acheiving insane share price value despite 2 years of substantial losses, this is apparently ok at PB. If I had invested I would be very, very worried right now- I'm not saying there is anything to necessarily worry about, but this behaviour by senior execs would terrify me if I had invested.

From: Kristjan Byfield 26 July 2016 11:03 AM

So we are now basing market expectations on what owners think their property will do? Shock- they all think values will go up in 12 months....think or hope? What's more, can the media stop blaming everything on Brexit, the London property market (dare I say crisis) that we are now facing has much more to do with an over heated market revealed by an intentional restriction placed on foreign buyers (sensibly) and a non existent housing policy with almost no property (other than shared ownership) available for first time buyers with a household income under £100k+.

From: Kristjan Byfield 25 July 2016 10:50 AM

US have almost always operated on this basis with an office above the (former parent co) Greene & Co. Many agents using leading software can offer most if not all of what US are discussing- we have done so for a couple of years now. I find it interesting that agents get press for this as being 'revolutionary' largely because of their corporate affiliations when many of us innovative independents lose out because we dont have a big PR budget. Oh well.

From: Kristjan Byfield 22 July 2016 11:49 AM

Why would ANY agent want them to drop the OOP rule?! Just drop them all together- if we end up with 3 portals (and one of them distinctly weaker than the others) than all that has been acheived is the INCREASE of agents marketing spend, the polar oposite of its sole purpose.

From: Kristjan Byfield 20 July 2016 16:26 PM

The issue with OTM was always the premise of its creation- to reduce agents marketing costs. Whilst this is a practical ideal, it is not a good motivator. Whilst this was a fine starting point, the immediate attention should have turned to the User to understand what ZPG & RM dont deliver in terms of digital UsEx, UI and how to separate OTM from them in the market. This wasnt done so OTM was built and isnt quite as good as either other portal. I have not yet heard anyone site 1 standout feature of the portal- and that is the problem. The bizarre cries by some OTM agents of them to drop their OOP rule (one other portal) is, again, madness as the sole premise was to reduce marketing spend and to de-stabilise the 'monopoly'. By doing so, the opposite is acheived, monopoly remians untouched AND advertising expenses now increase as all agents have to now pay 3 portals for full coverage rather than 3- and how long before OTM charges similarly to the others. Frankly I think they sgould admit it is a faiked project, wind it down and move on. If not, then they need to completely rebud the platform to be something market leading and cutting edge rather than 2nd rate. Just my opion though. Put of interest- who are these agents? Wny the secrecy? If I was them I would be a lot more public about the whole thing.

From: Kristjan Byfield 13 July 2016 12:27 PM

Worryingly low fees- no way they will get any real tractions or put themselves in front of enough users to drive the traffic agents need. When you consider what RM & ZPG deliver I actually still think they are very good value for money. All too often we see these products targetted at agents created by companies who dont really understand agents. Every Portal/PropTech start-up should have at least 1 expereienced industry member on board for industry guidance and insight. This isnt that dis-similar to PropertyIndex which started off well but, as always, after the first 3-6 months of hype, quickly shrank thereafter.

From: Kristjan Byfield 12 July 2016 11:10 AM

No accounts filed yet- should be soon. Think it will make some very painful reading! Reading about KW made me think about 'Move 51 North' the North London letting agency set up by Haringey Council is taking North London by storm. After about a year's trading it currently has a whopping TWO rental properties on its books- both of which are let. Maybe being an agent isnt as easy as everyone thinks it is!?

From: Kristjan Byfield 06 July 2016 10:53 AM

Yikes- it boasts those figures like they are good but those are appalling. 100 agents with 300 properties- what on earth do they do all day? Properties are also all over the UK with many at the low end of the market generating small fees. For an agent that brags being the biggest in the world (an American bragging in a global scale- whatever next) these are some very embarassing figures- they must be losing a fortune at the moment.

From: Kristjan Byfield 06 July 2016 10:48 AM

With year 2 turnover of just £24k that sounds spot on. Not sure how they are dissruprting a market with thos etransaction volumes and dont see how they can survive much longer on that turnover.

From: Kristjan Byfield 04 July 2016 13:14 PM

Had a mini rant on twitter about this over the weekend. They claim to have 'halved transaction times' but do not state timings, they claim to have 93% of sales complete compared to 63% with traditional agents- however when I enquired what % of listings they sold they did not answer! Finally, amd in my opinion most importantly, this is a copany getting huge press, backed by mega investors, lauded as a 'disruptor' yet Year 2 account at CH reveals an annual turnover of just £24,000. Pleae write an insightful balanced article on these things with some ex[ert & detailed insight- it took me all of 5 mins to pick apart their various claims.

From: Kristjan Byfield 04 July 2016 13:13 PM

What a nonsense announcement- absolutely no statistics, no mention of specific investment or projected spend, no mention of the specifics of their ambitious growth. Maybe every agent in the UK should issue statememts like this. Looking at their brief accounts it appears they are doing well but the groth they are talking about will take a huge investment.

From: Kristjan Byfield 17 June 2016 11:09 AM

They have picked interesting stats that sound more impressive than they really are- but of course they would (just like any of us would for our respctive co's). Given their huge marketing spend and the level of media coverage in the last 12 months 448% growth in revenue is really the least they should expect but lets not forget they lost £8m last year- theres a long way to recovery from there. As always, intrigued to see the real figures as I feel profit this year apperas optimistic. With 205 LPEs even at just £18k each that is a £3.7m salary bill which is more like £4.4m at their target of 245 and thats based on minimum wage. As for comments that the LPEs are that- there are tos of agents claiming to be experts but are morons with no knowledge, professionalism and are solely self-interested so that's a non starter. There is no question they have grown market share but I have still not seen any evidence that this is a viable and successful business model. I am also mystified why Dean Fisher and so many other think an average sales fee of around 1.3% is expensive!? Most of Europe sees fees of around 5-6% even as high as 10%. Now THAT is expensive- the UK is a bargain. Roll on the real figures!

From: Kristjan Byfield 16 June 2016 12:32 PM

Hi Kevin- totally agree just think transparency needs improving. A lot of agents 'hide' their fees by charging exit & renewal fees which are not disclosed upfront but only in the Tenancy Agreement. By the time most Tenants get this, they have already committed to a property so to pull out when presented with £500 of hidden charges is nigh on impossible. Transparency is what will ultimately resuce our industry image so it should be enforced that all letting agents must disclose any and all fees to both Tenants and Landlords and these should be listed openly on agency websites and applied, where relevant, to property portals too.

From: Kristjan Byfield 15 June 2016 13:38 PM

Not sure who else agrees with me but I find this whole 'hybrid' label bizarre. We live in a digital age and all agents need to be 'hybrid'. This term has been hijacked by onlne agents and is now used in association with online agents however nothing could be further from the truth. The 'true' online agent was a 'hands off' model delivering huge savings to clients for undertaking much of the work usually done by an agent. Hybrid is nothing that new and is certainly nt a result of online agents but is the simple and unavoidable progression of all businesses in all sectors n a digital age. Again, the need by trade bodies, the media and 'groups/organisations' to put the stick in the sand to pledge to one 'model' is bizarre. Instead what we should be doing, as a sector, is celebrate the incredible array of choices now available to Landlords and Vendors alike to get any service level they want for the selected budget. Rather than celebrating the 'death of the High St agent' we should celebrate the evolution of our industry in to a truly consumer driven service sector.

From: Kristjan Byfield 14 June 2016 10:58 AM

I think the only agents at risk by online offerings are those that offer a poor service and knowledge. If you hire the cheapest staff you can find and invest nothing in to developing them- dont be surprised when your only negotiating tool is to drop your fees killing your business. Those agents that continue to drop fees to get business pull themselves ever-closer to online offerings making the leap an easy one to make. Invest in your brand, your offerings and your staff and you have nothing to fear. Online offerings are great for the right clientele but I dont see this becoming a market-leader/dominator any time soon. Whilst I still have a huge issue with how people keep calling trdaitional agents expensive- I beleive the national average sales fee is around 1.5% which is a fraction that you pay in almost any other country in the World.

From: Kristjan Byfield 13 June 2016 11:10 AM

Interesting to see them step out from the shadows at last. They have been acquiring local independents at quite a pace of late. Another Super Agent on the rise- you have to wonder how many truly independent agents will be left in a few years time!?

From: Kristjan Byfield 13 June 2016 10:56 AM

Some interesting points which many forum members have raused many times. Will Purple Bricks be the General Magic of online agents? Maybe! Can a low orice model sustain a high-cost marketing strategy? Unlikely! However I am still surprised to see so many hang their hat on a sepcific model being successful. Online agents will forever have a place in the market but will only be a threat to poor agencies and those competing at the lowest level. However a tool for hands on Vendors & Landlords is great for those that want that control amnd resonsbility at reduced costs. What I dont understand is the relvance of a sale completion schedule? Although 5 months is on the high side, this is largely dictated by lenders, solicitors and chains- which seem to be getting slower as time goes on. Our average leasehold, chain free sale takes around 3.5-4 months.

From: Kristjan Byfield 01 June 2016 12:24 PM

Just googled 'Cubbyhole' and 'Cubbyhole Estate Agents' and the only things that come up is articles about the site- but no website itself!? I only managed to find the website by using a link in The Telegraph article. Incidentally has anyone read the article? I love the massively inaccurate statement in the opening paragraph that reads 'On a £500,000 house, home owners may pay a high street estate agent upwards of £10,000 to market it for sale.' No- a home owner may pay a High St agent anywhere from around £5k-15k to SELL the property. This is probably one of the most important diferentiators between offerings as Vendors need to understand the difference of a fee paid to market and a fee paid for selling- very, very different!

From: Kristjan Byfield 23 May 2016 19:18 PM

The move by many of the market-leading 'online agents' to an increasingly hybrid model already shows that clients generally want more then the cheapest most cut-back of offerings. There will always be a place for an agent wanting to be the cheapest but with onine agents currently occupying 5% and the hybrids dominating this I think any agent thinking that the cheapest option will be come the market leader is kidding themselves. There is a marketplace, for sure- there will always be a place for cheapest offerings. However, to repeat the 'go to' claim to try and sit alongside RM & ZPG is insane. With almost no margin how will they support a large marketing campaign?

From: Kristjan Byfield 23 May 2016 19:10 PM

A great article on a genuine issue. We have tried for years to educate and inform our Tenants, to be transparent and fair however it is staggering how many Tenants dont read the literature and guidance we give them. Unfortunately, it all just seems a bit too boring or time-consuming for many to bother however they then get upset when penalised for a breach of some sort or another. A great site for Tenants is The Tenants Voice which contains a bunch of free, DCLG approved, online courses for Tenants to do. It is broken down in modules and makes very clear what a Tenants rights are but also (and very importantly) what their responsibilities are. If anyone figures out how to crack this one I'd love to know!

From: Kristjan Byfield 21 May 2016 16:14 PM

This is a huge issue in the industry- increasing legislation which is adopted by some (readily) yet not others. In fact, the very parties this legislation is brought in to tackle are the very ones not been taken to task. Any compliant & professional agent should support enforcement but this is the issue with council cut backs- there is no one there TO enforce these things. Madness! I've never understood the secrecy behind ANY fess- we have had all Landlord, Tenant and Vendor charges on our website for years and it doesnt do us any damage, in fact, as expected, people love the transparency. Maybe PRS, TPOS or another bidy should apply for a license to enforce these regulations with the relevant council on a fine-split basis....?

From: Kristjan Byfield 21 May 2016 16:10 PM

We seem to have an obsession in the industry media with 'backing one horse'. Be it online, hybrid or traditional the reality is there is plenty of market for everyone. The only agents (in any category) that will suffer in the long run are those that don't eviolve, improve and refuse to listen to their clients and applicants. The Butlins to Bahamas analagy was great and, contrary t a lot of the PR and hype banded about, it was actually refreshing to here valid and fair comments from the big three hybrids- EweMove, emoov & hatched. It was a great event- just a shame we didnt really see any focus placed on lettings/PRS as this is a huge area of innovation that will see enormous evolution over the next 5 years.

From: Kristjan Byfield 20 May 2016 11:34 AM

There are some amazing other PropTech companies that I feel are hugely beneficial- especially to estate and letting agents. Here's a few I think agents should look at: Goodlord- streamline and automate the tenancy application process Spliitable- a free app for tenants in shared props to equally track who has paid what and who owes what FixFlo- if you're not already using this why not? myPropertyFile- if you're a Jupix/PSG customer then the myPF products for Landlords and Tenants are fantastic WRISK- these guys arent up and running fully just yet but are going to revolutionsie the way people view & use insurance all in an awesome platform Docusign- online signature platform Mailchimp- run enewsletter campaigns & marketing easily Cammy- easy & affordable home CCTV that you can check and view from your phone/app NEST- awesome tech to make your home smarter & more efficient

From: Kristjan Byfield 14 May 2016 13:09 PM

This is all just PR, I'm intrigued to see the actual figures- I think profit in 2017 is very optimistic given small margins and huge marketing overheads.

From: Kristjan Byfield 11 May 2016 10:36 AM

As the old saying goes- turnover is vanity profit is sanity. I still question where the actual margins are in this sector. With no 'person' to maintain a relationship, they will always rely heavily on huge market spends to maintain a stream of new clients. With small fees and huge advertising costs I just don't see where the profit is. With around £8m losses last year, I am intrigued to see what their latest stats state. Share price is all well and good- until people finally become weary of a business that remains upside down. Amazon got away with poor performance in profitability for years but that was because they were (and continue to) invest in a framework that enables them to dominate the marjet going forwards. Purplebricks are not doing this. They are merely spending a ton of money on advertising. The fact remains, that whilst people love to balk at agency fees- with many agents in the UK charging 1-1.5% for sales (not forgetting no sale, no fee) these are some of the lowest rates worldwide. When people see their property sell for 10,20,30% or more, for doing nothing more than living there for a few years, they dont tend to mind giving away a small percentage of that for a hassle free sale through a qulaity local agent with personality. Dont forget- agents are local businesses. They bring business to other local services, eat in local cafes & restaurants, etc.- Purle Bricks will never be part of a local community as it gives nothing back.

From: Kristjan Byfield 04 May 2016 11:00 AM

Doesnt this cement what we all knew already- hands on sellers & landlords can save money by doing more themselves and taking morte risk on themsleves by using an online agent. Otherwise, people can continue to use more traditional agents and get a more comprehensive service for a higher fee. Not exactly earth-shattering. I am still oooking forward to the article that tackles the issue of profitability within the online agent sector as so many are showing little if any profit with the likes of PB recording losses in the millions. Once the millins raised through selling shares has been spent, there will be a lot of angry investors wondering where their money has gone.

From: Kristjan Byfield 03 May 2016 12:40 PM

Agreed- if you have to neg on fees your not offering/doing/impressing enough. However the London property market is in for a very tough 2016, largely due to an over-valued market. Once values re-adjust and London developers start building homes for regular income residents, the market wil right itself.

From: Kristjan Byfield 27 April 2016 10:51 AM

Why do people want OTM to drop the one-other-portal rule? This goes agauinst the very essence of why OTM was formed as its sole aim was to reduce the marketing spend for agents. By drop this, it does the opposite and only goes to further increase agent spend. Again- portals do not create leads they funnel them- being with 20 portals doesnt mean x20 leads. Very strange indeed! Also, limited sympathy, as agents chose OTM not to provide better marketing for their clients but to drive down their own marketing costs, boosting profit. Hakf of the agents that joined could have made that saving through a cut-back in other poor ROI advertising such as print media.

From: Kristjan Byfield 26 April 2016 11:28 AM

Everyone is being very quiet about the state of the London sales market at the moment which has appeared to have dropped off a cliff recently wth enquiries, viewings and offers down massively. Sales agents in London have a VERY tough 2016 ahead of them.

From: Kristjan Byfield 14 April 2016 13:16 PM

Still intrigued that no one talks about the profit and loss of this business. Massive losses last year and see no sign of this equation righting itself. Wonder how long people will love this company when it continues to lose money hand over fist. I totally get the value and proposition of an online agent and think they have a valuable place in the market but their margins are so tight they cant sustain the massive marketng efforts that only the largest companes engage with hge turnover and profit figures. Still awaiting an insightful and honest revoew of this company and its offerings as an investment and potential business going forwards. I think companies like upad and ewemove are taking a must wiser approach from a business perspective.

From: Kristjan Byfield 14 April 2016 13:13 PM

It's true that it's fair for a company to pursue those under contract. Those that took the chance on OTM took a risk but, had it worked, would have been rewarded with long term low fees. However, it is also time for OTM to accept it has failed in its sole aim of destabilising the market monopoly and to consider shutting. What I fear will happen is, in a desperate attempt to just stay open, OTM will eventually drop the 'one other portal' rule and, in doing so, will compromise on the very reason of their creation- adding another marketing cost to agents rather than its sole objective to reduce this. Some businesses fail, and property portals fail more than most, but I just hope OTM has the decency to accept it hasn't worked and it quietly and politely shuts its doors. But please, fellow agents, if they do drop the rule please don't be mugs and pay them or sign up. Remember portals don't create opportunity they just funnel them.

From: Kristjan Byfield 07 April 2016 11:02 AM

£600k turnover and 19 staff- OUCH!

From: Kristjan Byfield 21 March 2016 13:43 PM

Nice pice Simon- however one thing I categorically disagree with is the seeking of OTM to remove the 'one other portal' rule. The entire premise of OTM was to destabilise the monopoly with the primary aim of REDUCING agents marketting costs. If OTM are to remove the OOP rule, then they should immediately shut their doors. Very simply, by dropping OOP they are admitting to have failed in disturbing the monopoly and will now become an ADDITIONAL marketting expense- exactly the opposite of their ambition. It is imporatnt that we remember that- portals dont create enquiries, they simply funnel them. I would therefore much rather keep paying ZPG/RM then add a 3rd weak portal on to this as an additional expense. I never thought OTM would work and, if it did, saw it as anther way for larger agents to cash in like so many did with the original development of RM.

From: Kristjan Byfield 18 January 2016 14:12 PM

Glenn I have been ranting about lack of honesty in trading figures and it's a relief to see someone openly discuss this with candour. There has been far too much hype about the online agent model without proper journalistic insight so its refreshing to hear real stats being discussed.

From: Kristjan Byfield 18 January 2016 12:15 PM

That completion happens then means these transactions started typically 6 weeks to 3 months prior. So this bears no relevance to being open over Christmas or not. In reality, not at all surprising that sales try to get across the line before the holidays. Seriously!?

From: Kristjan Byfield 21 December 2015 14:05 PM

So Purplebricks.......a glance at their latest accounts shows a loss of around £5.5m after sales of nearly £3.4m. Last year losses were over £2m. That is one upside down business and I cant see how they can possibly turn those figures around to be profitable. Seems to me like the sale of shares is going to be used to fill a very dark hole.

From: Kristjan Byfield 18 December 2015 11:45 AM

Interesting piece. I always find it interesting when companies advice 'millions spent on development'- this is rarely the case. These sites are iften developed for tens of thousands or maybe low-six figure sums but these are then ramped up by the company as being worth millions. Madness. Didnt really track Veyo but bizarre that a project backed by the LS has collapsed so early. Clearly someone has walked away laughing from this and it sounds like the developers.

From: Kristjan Byfield 18 December 2015 11:35 AM

OK so this might be interesting for some people. A quick look on their rightmove 'microsites' reveals 174 Sales lstings of which 30 are U/O and 241 resi lettings of which 37 are L/UO. Even if we base this on their mid-range fee option, this accounts for £11,849.97 of lettings revenue (even if they opt for the top package this equates to just £55,229.17) and if we apply the upfront fee to unsold listings (£395.83) this equates to £68,875 and then if we apply the higher fee (middle one) to the sold units (lets give them the benefit of the doubt so £687.50) this equates to £20,625. Therefore, across all residential business as seen on their site, they have (at best) accumulated a whopping £144,729.17- and thats their gross turnover. But yeah, sure, in 3 years I can easily see the £1Bn mark valuation beckoning. Not to mention what an amazing ROI the EP investors are going to get- especially the ones who bought in though Crowdfunding and paid a premium for a tiny share in the business. What worries me at the moment is that the online agents like PB and EP are making outlandish and utterly unfounded claims on valuatons and are fooling investors in to parting with cash on the wave of hype. In the very near future, these companies will be unable to sustain these claims and will have to asnwer to these investors as the figures dont just fall short but are embarassingly, almost fraudulently, short and we will create a new wave of people who despise agents- once again lumping us all in to the same basket. I fully support the value of online agents and the role they play in the future of our sector but I am not willing to have our industry heaped in more mire just to line the pockets of a few who know exactly what they are doing! I would actually like to see some proper investigative journalism go on here rather than just recycling PR announcements- even if they are spending alot with you guys on advertising.

From: Kristjan Byfield 14 December 2015 13:26 PM

AS 'Chief Executve' of my company, I am proud to announce that by 2020 our company may be worth £1 Trillion, in ligt of this, Easyproperty really is under-performing ;-) Seriously? Why are claims like this even getting reported?

From: Kristjan Byfield 14 December 2015 10:59 AM

Just a brief glance at their account shows a growing negative equity with sporalling liabilities. In 2014 they recorded just £50k in the bank but liabilities of nearly £130k. BVut yeah, sure, if course £10m turnover is likely next year- but they are probably going to have to spend £12-15m to generate it. Much like Purple Bricks & EasyProperty- quick invest millions in these businesses for a 1% stake and.........get rich? What I dont understand is I genuinely see a place for online agents in the market as they service a sector that do not want to pay full agency fees but are willing to take on responsibility for many elements themselves. This should, in fact, be a very simbiotic relationship however all we ever do is make useless accusations and now the seemingly endless claims by online agents of ridiculous vauations. Just beciase of the media hype it doesnt mean any of this is true. Companies like this and PB are still small fish compared to the large and established agents and there are few of those that would boast of the fogures and values this lot do. I'd love to see some real journalism from LAT/LLT/EAT to really drill down in to all these hyped up online agents, pick apart the firgures and publish a piece that tells the facts rather than simply regurgitating PR releases.

From: Kristjan Byfield 11 December 2015 12:32 PM

They are going to have stiff competition from the likes of MoveIT being rolled out by PSG which sits alongside all their software platforms. They only offer conveyancing at the moment but other services, like those listed here, are to be rolled out soon.

From: Kristjan Byfield 09 December 2015 11:33 AM

We are relaunching tomorrow as an online agent and are seeking £1bn worth of investment on Thursday for a whopping 10% in our business. Seems fair and a completely legitimate valuation- sure you'll all agree ;-) Quick invest your money before its all gone!

From: Kristjan Byfield 08 December 2015 17:22 PM

Good Luck to Chris but intrigued as to how the new selection was made. A quick look at Katrine on LinkedIn reveals absolutely no involvement or experience in Property or Ombudsman services previously. With ever-increasing competition in the 'regulators' paddock, I know one of the greatest frustrations for agents who chose who and what reguators to join, is a lack of understanding of our industry. Hiw qas this choice made and who was in the mix? Regardless, I wish Katrine luck in the new role and hope that this has been a wise selection.

From: Kristjan Byfield 07 December 2015 13:12 PM

Actually think labour and materials are very reasonable in the UK and there are lots of very reasonable property price locations as long as you dont want to live in London that is!

From: Kristjan Byfield 03 December 2015 13:20 PM

Of all the things to campaign for!?! All properties must have an EPC which states sq metres so, if you have an agency which doesnt do floor plans, it is still a fairly easy calculation. Very strange indeed. Maybe our industry is getting so fantastic now that these minor things are the only weaks left to make?

From: Kristjan Byfield 03 December 2015 13:18 PM

As many have stated above, there is tons of evdence to support the level of enquiries and viewing requests are highest in the forst 2 weeks. I seem to remember that at least 80% of enquiries for a property arrive in the first 2 weeks. I would be intrigued to know what level of interest housesimple have after the first 2 weeks as online-only agents. I would be intrigues to know if their marketted on the same portals as the rest of us miraculously does differently. What is more, the comments regarding inflated list prices and the ensuing reductions are usually client driven. I have seen so many clients n London over the years be given 2/3/4 accurate valuations supported by listings and recent transactions. Then in comes an agent who gives a price 10-20% higher with ni justification and (in many cases) a hgher fee. The clients suddenly lose all interest in comparables as £ signs flash before thier eyes often without any questions to that agent as to why their valuation is so much higher than others and what evidence they have to support this. I never have an issue with a client testing the market at a higher price, but an agent should never be blamed if this doesnt work out and the price is then reduced. Must say, though, by now very bored of the pointless mud-slinging between 'online' and 'high street' agents. How about we all just get on with doing the best job we can rather than posting poorly thought out, mud slinging comments simply for a reaction and some free press?

From: Kristjan Byfield 25 November 2015 14:11 PM

Look out World! 8 London listings, most (if not all) of which appear to be either grossly over-valued or have been listed on there by agents. Well done emoh, you have totally disrupted the market. Again.

From: Kristjan Byfield 23 November 2015 11:44 AM

So 30% of the biz was bought 3 years ago for £7m and that stake is now worth £75m? Of course it is. A brief search on line shows debts of £1.2m (or thereabouts). I genuinely see a place for online agents as a large part of the market, but I think currently the hye surrounding them is being used to rip off investors who will never see a return on that valuation (simialr thoguhnts when EP did their crowd funding recently) and they risk damaging their whole sector, blinded by short term greed. I am yet to see any online agents post the profits to justify the hype surrounding biz valuations and funding chases.

From: Kristjan Byfield 16 November 2015 12:29 PM

Houser are utterly uselss not at all clear why they even get a mention on here!

From: Kristjan Byfield 13 October 2015 10:14 AM

Sharing commissions- how new and revoltionary.....oh no, hang on, agents have been sharing commissions since the industry started. The KW website is very basic, apparently only interested in 'off market' sales- but then how can you boast market-leading marketting? If you look at the US property market, we are way ahead in terms of tech, info, services, design and so many more. I'd be as bold to say that the UK agent market is probably the best in the World- despite the wideboy images hangover from the 80's/90's.

From: Kristjan Byfield 08 October 2015 10:31 AM

2000% growth in 3 years is an interesting target although intrigued to see how profitable the business can be with such aggressive plans- sounds like a lot of advertising. Always seen a valid place for online agents in our marketplace but with other established brands and other big funding efforts from the likes of EasyProperty I'm intrigued to see just how much market there is to share.

From: Kristjan Byfield 08 October 2015 10:27 AM

I find comments that 'we would market with OTM if they dropped the one other portal rule' bizarre. The whole & sole point of OTM was to disrupt the 'monopoly' of the big two with the aim of SAVING agents money. Portals do not CREATE tenants and buyers and client leads they simply funnel them. So, if you are willing to join OTM on this basis then what you are actually sayting is- not only am I happy with the pricing of RM & ZPG but I am happy to pay a much smaller site another fee in addition to those 2 to steal a small percentage of their traffic and deliver them to me under a new brand. If OTM does not break the monopoly (and it wont) then it should be wound down as that was its sole purpose behond launch. Supporting it under any other model is madness- it just says ' I am happy to waste my money on an unnecessary 3rd wheel on my marketing bicycle'.

From: Kristjan Byfield 09 July 2015 11:01 AM

Contrary to most comments here I agree with the excusivity rule for OTM- although I dont market with them. The whole point behind its inception was to break the monopoly of RM & ZPG and so, to do this, it HAD to have the exclusivity rule. If this is taken away then OTM should just close as, rather than acheiving its goal of SAVING agents money, it will in fact do the opposite and simply be another addition on top of RM & ZPG INCREASING agency marketing costs. A 3rd major portal does not create 1/3 new revenue- portals do not create buyers they just help allocate those that exist to the applicable resources. If OTM were to be investigated I would have thought this would have been regarding their stance re 'online agents' which I think is unfair and shows a backwards approach to an evolving industry. Personally I have no issue with this business model (online agents)and see absolutley no competition between them and a high quality, full service agency- so I dont understand this backwards approach trying to ignore a shift in how a sector performs going forwards.

From: Kristjan Byfield 04 June 2015 11:52 AM

Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet

Viewed From: Breaking News Today 14:58

Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet

Viewed From: Video Archieve Today 14:58

Portal Discussions

Joined Group From: Your Community Today 14:58

Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet

Viewed From: Industry View Today 14:58

Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet

Viewed From: Industry View Today 14:58

Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet

Make Today's Website as home page

Kristjan's Personal Profile View my company profile

About Me

my expertise in the industry

Kristjan's wall

Kristjan's Recent Activity

From: Kristjan Byfield 10 April 2024 11:03 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 20 March 2024 11:10 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 14 March 2024 10:55 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 13 March 2024 10:08 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 21 February 2024 10:24 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 20 February 2024 12:25 PM

From: Kristjan Byfield 19 February 2024 13:50 PM

From: Kristjan Byfield 10 January 2024 12:14 PM

From: Kristjan Byfield 10 January 2024 12:13 PM

From: Kristjan Byfield 10 January 2024 12:10 PM

From: Kristjan Byfield 13 December 2023 16:44 PM

From: Kristjan Byfield 17 October 2023 10:48 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 13 October 2023 10:24 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 12 October 2023 12:24 PM

From: Kristjan Byfield 07 August 2023 12:17 PM

From: Kristjan Byfield 04 August 2023 11:14 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 03 August 2023 10:38 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 03 August 2023 10:32 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 23 June 2023 11:09 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 23 June 2023 11:06 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 17 May 2023 11:48 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 16 May 2023 11:33 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 15 March 2023 11:01 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 07 February 2023 11:35 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 02 February 2023 12:13 PM

From: Kristjan Byfield 31 January 2023 11:31 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 23 January 2023 10:50 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 20 December 2022 12:10 PM

From: Kristjan Byfield 19 December 2022 14:48 PM

From: Kristjan Byfield 19 December 2022 14:00 PM

From: Kristjan Byfield 19 December 2022 13:40 PM

From: Kristjan Byfield 15 December 2022 10:56 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 14 December 2022 14:03 PM

From: Kristjan Byfield 14 December 2022 13:12 PM

From: Kristjan Byfield 13 December 2022 10:58 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 02 December 2022 11:07 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 21 November 2022 09:30 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 21 November 2022 09:25 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 16 November 2022 11:53 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 15 November 2022 13:07 PM

From: Kristjan Byfield 10 November 2022 14:24 PM

From: Kristjan Byfield 10 November 2022 14:16 PM

From: Kristjan Byfield 09 November 2022 18:50 PM

From: Kristjan Byfield 08 November 2022 11:49 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 03 November 2022 15:51 PM

From: Kristjan Byfield 01 November 2022 12:17 PM

From: Kristjan Byfield 28 October 2022 18:09 PM

From: Kristjan Byfield 27 October 2022 15:33 PM

From: Kristjan Byfield 25 October 2022 15:18 PM

From: Kristjan Byfield 21 October 2022 16:48 PM

From: Kristjan Byfield 19 October 2022 10:25 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 30 September 2022 11:23 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 13 September 2022 15:04 PM

From: Kristjan Byfield 31 August 2022 18:10 PM

From: Kristjan Byfield 19 August 2022 11:17 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 02 August 2022 10:53 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 01 July 2022 15:39 PM

From: Kristjan Byfield 23 May 2022 11:49 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 01 April 2022 10:23 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 04 March 2022 11:17 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 28 February 2022 11:33 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 28 February 2022 10:59 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 24 February 2022 11:02 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 24 February 2022 11:01 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 23 February 2022 12:20 PM

From: Kristjan Byfield 15 February 2022 10:39 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 11 February 2022 10:54 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 11 February 2022 10:51 AM

From: Kristjan Byfield 08 February 2022 15:19 PM

From: Kristjan Byfield 03 February 2022 12:07 PM

From: Kristjan Byfield 28 January 2022 13:13 PM

From: Kristjan Byfield 28 January 2022 13:09 PM

From: Kristjan Byfield 14 January 2022 12:12 PM

From: Kristjan Byfield 06 January 2022 14:24 PM